Posted on 11/10/2010 12:27:27 AM PST by Corky Boyd
The subject is a video. What difference does viewing a live shot make?
Why didn't the Flight 808 pilot say anything about it. It must have missed him by inches!
No, I haven't.
Did you see the incident in question live, or are you basing your opinion on the video and/or screenshots?
SRBs don't puff. They burn constantly. Perhaps you are thinking about ram-jets.
As a missile expert, could you tell me how long it would take for a missile to reach the altitude shown in these screenshots? http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/gallery/2010/11/09/mystery-missile-launch-off-california/#photo-1
Take a close look at the trailing end of the contrail/plume/whatever in the first image. To me the spread to the left looks like what you'd get from high altitude winds blowing on a persistent contrail over a period of at least a half hour. Can you say that that it would spread in a similar way in the timespan you think it would take for a missile to get to the altitude you think it's at?
Reavers!
Check this out and tell me it wasn't a sub:
Rush Limbaugh is also convinced it’s no airplane. I’m glad we have his take on board — that took guts.
That is why I'm not convinced it's a contrail.
There Blue Whales out in that general area this summer...wonder if we had any sonar on then?
**************************
There were Blue Whales out in that general area this summer...wonder if we had any sonar on then?
11/9/2010 ---- A Graphic Representation of the Path of That Missile
Do read what is said...the picture is a construction....
Some interesting comments also...
Becuase I HAVE, when I look at this video I know that what I see with regard to the actual trail produced by the object, is NOT condensation from two engines, but the plume of solid fuel from ONE engine.
Perhaps you labor under the impression that while some of us who understand that the contrail explanation is a scam have seen many missile shots per year, we have never noticed airplane contrails that resemble plumes from missiles? Is it that you think we've never seen those live, as opposed to on video or (worse) in still shots?
We've seen live missile shots, and we've seen film of them. You've only seen film.
Guess whose conclusions I am going to give more credence?
I have no doubt you'd hold that belief no matter how much incontrovertible evidence there was against it.
Do your own work, pal. It actually takes the willingness and ability to read. That you are too lazy or too slow to do it is your problem. And frankly, when you show a pic of what you claim is a contrail made by an airplane, who the hell are YOU to think everyone here should automatically believe it (when they certainly could be missile shots mislabeled as airplane contrails)?
Why shouldn't I doubt you as much as you doubt callers to local radio stations and FReepers, most of whose posts you obviously have not read? If you had READ the posts, you'd know which FReepers who were eminently qualified (I admit!) think this was a contrail, and who give me second thoughts about my own opinion, and which FReepers who are eminently qualified, and whose posts I've read for years and who are like old acquaintances (not strangers), think as I do: that this was a missile and that for some reason, the gov't is hiding something. BUT since you are too lazy or too slow to read them yourself, you want me to go to the many, many hours of work it would take to "point out these 'whole lotta' on FR."
You have not read or heard much at all, clearly, and you are too lazy to do the honest work yourself. Which means your opinions are based on what you want to believe, not on what you have concluded through reading and reflection.
In this matter, you behave like a hypocrite with double standards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.